Under the law??

[pat34lee]

Your understanding is wrong.

No, she is exactly right. Most bible versions that carry the phrase are at least honest enough to put in parentheses to mark where it was added. It is the same type of added interpretation as that where the Messiah supposedly declared all foods clean.

 

[pat34lee]

The way I understand it, anyone who would choose to live under the Torah would have to do as you have done - to reject Paul's writings. A choice has to be made: either choose to follow what Paul taught and not observe the law; or keep the law and reject Paul. I don't think that both can be done, despite the attempts of many within the Messianic Movement.

That is because you choose to try to interpret them without applying the same standard you would use for the Torah. All scripture must agree with other scripture. If they don't seem to agree, either one is not scripture, or you are applying the wrong interpretation to it.

 

[yonah_mishael]

So then, you three unanomously agree that Paul taught NOT to observe the Torah, to both Jews and Gentiles?

Are you three agreeing together that Paul taught anyone and everyone (Jews and Gentiles) not to observe the law?

That anyone who choses to 'live under Torah' as a Jew, would have to reject the preaching of Jesus? Since Paul preached Jesus as opposed to Torah observance (Judaism)?

Are you three in agreement that Paul taught that neither he nor anyone else is to observe Torah and be considered Jewish (required to keep Torah) after Jesus? If we follow Jesus we are no longer obligated, even as Jews, as proved by Yonah's example of Paul above? ie. Paul 'was' required to keep the law but after Jesus he taught that he and 'anyone' who followed Jesus was free as well?

You see, this is what I see you agreeing on. Do Jews become Christians and never the two will meet? Once you become Christian you loose your Jewishness (observance of law)? Paul was teaching that Jesus made him and the Gentiles free from the requirements of Torah observance (Judaism)?

I just want to make sure that my eyes are seeing what I believe is being said here.

Paul taught that once you become a Christian (believer in Yeshua Messiah) no one (anyone) is not required to observe the law? Paul taught 'anyone' not to observe the law?

Yes, I would agree with that. Paul did not have in his reckoning two different systems - one for Jews and one for Gentiles. He taught very openly that in the cross the division between the two was destroyed and there was, ever after, only one body, not two factions within the body. The prime example is how Peter was living when he was staying with Paul in Syria, according to Paul's own words: "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Galatians 2:14, NKJV) Peter was "living in the manner of Gentiles" while he was with Paul. So, yes, that is what I would agree with. Paul expected that those who came to Jesus would stop living in restrictions.

 

[yonah_mishael]

No, she is exactly right. Most bible versions that carry the phrase are at least honest enough to put in parentheses to mark where it was added. It is the same type of added interpretation as that where the Messiah supposedly declared all foods clean.

Since you cannot read Greek, I would think that your opinion of what is found in the Greek text and what isn't is only your opinion and carries no weight. I actually read the text and posted it above - and it's definitely in the Greek - as even visionary confirmed after she looked it up.

That is because you choose to try to interpret them without applying the same standard you would use for the Torah. All scripture must agree with other scripture. If they don't seem to agree, either one is not scripture, or you are applying the wrong interpretation to it.

Your assumption is your assumption. I do not labor under such assumptions when I read and interpret the Bible. Each author - in fact, each book - speaks for himself, and I do not force an interpretation on the text that isn't there.

 

[pat34lee]

Since you cannot read Greek, I would think that your opinion of what is found in the Greek text and what isn't is only your opinion and carries no weight. I actually read the text and posted it above - and it's definitely in the Greek - as even visionary confirmed after she looked it up.



Your assumption is your assumption. I do not labor under such assumptions when I read and interpret the Bible. Each author - in fact, each book - speaks for himself, and I do not force an interpretation on the text that isn't there.

You have a snarky attitude (to put it politely) and your opinions do not impress me very much either.

On 1 Corinthians 9:20

After the first clause, to them that are under the law as under the law, the following words, mee oon autos hupo nomon, not being myself under the law, are added by ABCDEFG, several others; the later Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian, Vulgate, and all the Itala; Cyril, Chrysostom, Damascenus, and others; and on this evidence Griesbach has received them into the text.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[visionary]

1 Corinthians 9:20
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

In my research, I ran across one explanation that didn't stand up well under scrutiny,,

The phrase "not being under law myself" was probably accidently omitted by a mistake of the eye when copyists' eyes jumped from "under law" to "under law" Textual Variants: 1 Corinthians 1:4-16:24

"Myself" would have remained in the text, if his eye jumped from one under law to the next..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by yonah_mishael
Yeah, I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds exactly like 1 Corinthians 9:20 to me. (insert sarcastic smiley here)

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

"Torah observant" is another way of saying "under the authority of the law." One will not observe the law if there is no requirement to do so. This "I myself am not under the law" (אֵינֶנִּי כָּפוּף לַתּוֹרָה - μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμο&#957 is exactly what Paul meant, that he was not under any requirement to keep Torah - and, thus, he didn't. I still do not understand how this isn't clear from Paul's letters. He preached Jesus, not Torah.

My understanding is the the stuff in brackets is not Paul's but what a translator is putting his understanding into Paul's writings.

It looks like it depends on which greek text a Bible version uses.

Look at the KJV/Young's and NASB/Rotherham for example. The W-H and Alexandrian texts are the same as what is used in the NASB/Rotherham it seems. I generally don't see 4 greek texts split evenly like this.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

KJV) 1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Young) 1 Corinthians 9:20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;

NASB) 1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 9:20 Therefore became I to the Jews as a Jew,--that Jews I might win; to them who were under law as under law, not being myself under law,--that them who were under law I might win;

1st Corinthians 9 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

Textus Rec.)
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

Byz./Maj.)
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

W-H )
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon mh wn autoV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

Alexandrian
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon mh wn autos upo nnomo ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

 

[pat34lee]

1 Corinthians 9:20
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

In my research, I ran across one explanation that didn't stand up well under scrutiny,,

I agree that the explanation is far-fetched. It is more likely that the extra words were added by a later anti-Torah copier.

 

[visionary]

It looks like it depends on which greek text a Bible version uses.

Look at the KJV/Young's and NASB/Rotherham for example. The W-H and Alexandrian texts are the same as what is used in the NASB/Rotherham it seems. I generally don't see 4 greek texts split evenly like this.

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

KJV) 1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Young) 1 Corinthians 9:20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;

NASB) 1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 9:20 Therefore became I to the Jews as a Jew,--that Jews I might win; to them who were under law as under law, not being myself under law,--that them who were under law I might win;

1st Corinthians 9 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

Textus Rec.)
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

Byz./Maj.)
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

W-H )
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon mh wn autoV upo nomon ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

Alexandrian
1 Corinthians 9:20 kai egenomhn toiV ioudaioiV wV ioudaioV ina ioudaiouV kerdhsw toiV upo nomon wV upo nomon mh wn autos upo nnomo ina touV upo nomon kerdhsw

Much appreciated... thanks

 

[ContraMundum]

So then, you three unanomously agree that Paul taught NOT to observe the Torah, to both Jews and Gentiles?

That wasn't what I was agreeing to. I was saying that the term "law" is used in different ways in the NT, so saying that one is "Torah observant" or not is really not a good term to use. Of course we are all "Torah observant", but not every part of the Torah binding on Christians. So, we need to be clear on what part of the Torah we are under.

The Gospels and the rest of the NT teach clearly that all mankind in the New Covenant is bound to the moral Torah (the two great commandments cover this) The NT writers do not teach that we are under obligation to wear tzitzis, kill animals and each other for religion, celebrate the Holy days given to Israel and so forth.

As for your questions concerning identity and Torah obligation, I believe the NT teaches that we maintain identity but we are all under the same Covenant. Only one Gospel, one faith, one baptism, one Covenant.

Anyway, I hope I have made my understanding of what I thought we were agreeing on clear.

 

[Shimshon]

That wasn't what I was agreeing to.

But it was plainly stated in the paragraph, as I identified, and as Yonah confirmed. Though I had considered the very real fact that I was misunderstanding the context of your agreements.

Thank you for your clarification here:

I was saying that the term "law" is used in different ways in the NT, so saying that one is "Torah observant" or not is really not a good term to use. Of course we are all "Torah observant", but not every part of the Torah binding on Christians. So, we need to be clear on what part of the Torah we are under.

The Gospels and the rest of the NT teach clearly that all mankind in the New Covenant is bound to the moral Torah (the two great commandments cover this) The NT writers do not teach that we are under obligation to wear tzitzis, kill animals and each other for religion, celebrate the Holy days given to Israel and so forth.

As for your questions concerning identity and Torah obligation, I believe the NT teaches that we maintain identity but we are all under the same Covenant. Only one Gospel, one faith, one baptism, one Covenant.

Anyway, I hope I have made my understanding of what I thought we were agreeing on clear.

Thank you very much CM, honorable as always. And as always, much appreciated.

If I may furthur this from what you responded and ask, in your opinion, how do we maintain our identity within this covenant? TYIA

 

[ContraMundum]

But it was plainly stated in the paragraph, as I identified, and as Yonah confirmed. Though I had considered the very real fact that I was misunderstanding the context of your agreements.

Yeah, I am thinking that might have been made clearer.

Thank you for your clarification here:
Thank you very much CM, honorable as always. And as always, much appreciated.

No problem-o.

If I may furthur this from what you responded and ask, in your opinion, how do we maintain our identity within this covenant? TYIA

I would guess that as long as one does nothing injurious to the Gospel, Christian witness and grace one could maintain as much Jewish cultural identity as one wishes. Even many Jewish religious traditions may be useful, although many will need modification.

For example, I think it is ok to:

Circumcise our male children.
Have friends over for Shabbos.
Have bar and bat mitzvah celebrations for our young.
Have a seder or maybe a sukkah on the appropriate days.
Even use in one's own private home tefillin and a tallis for devotional times.
Etc.

However, I think it is a crime against God and the Gospel to teach that any of these things are meant for Gentiles or that expressing one's faith in the above manner gives one extra grace, or justifies, or cleanses one of sin, or specially sanctifies, or gains one favor from God, or that these are a tool to lead Gentiles to a Jewish way of life that was originally intended by the Gospel, or that the person that does these things is "holier" or has a special connection to God not shared by others who approach God in their own cultural context and tradition.

These things should be done within the context of one's own Jewish family, and should not serve as a divisive wedge between one's family and other families in the congregation. One should respect and practice one's culture in the same manner as one's friends from other cultures in the congregation. For example, in my congregation we have a few Samoans. They dress in their own traditional dress on Sundays, and they have their own traditional ways of doing things that are wonderful and great testimonies to the Gospel in their culture. They love us and we love them- in unison and harmony. I do not tell them they need to learn Hebrew, or pray with tefillin, or get circumcised etc. To me that would be ridiculous and a false doctrine anyway. In fact, I learn important things from them. They know a lot about holiness and commitment.

Getting back to tradition and culture: For some reason, religion has a terrible and sometimes fatal attraction to human beings. While we might begin in good faith, maintaining our culture, so often we end up relying on our traditions as a connection to God. This I think is dangerous. Christianity is meant to be lived in the Spirit, led by the Spirit, and it is the pursuit of moral, inward holiness and not the pursuit of outward religion, which ends up a curse and drags us back to works righteousness and dead faith. Whether it's Christian traditions or Jewish ones the result is the same.

I really don't recommend non-Jewish people try to take up Jewish cultural and religious practices. It is a kind of reverse assimilation and by blurring the culture distinctions it witnesses against God's gracious plans for the Jewish people in the future. It leads people to finding excuses to be divisive of the One New Man and to become self-righteous. It gives people identity problems and confusion. It tells people that they aren't good enough to come to God as a child in their own way. It confuses and complicates the Gospel. It makes people think that God's grace is insufficient, and that they need to do something more to be near Him- something Jewish. It replaces prayer and faith with religion and form. It replaces one's identity in Christ with a human identity. It tells them that their own culture has nothing of value. Etc.

 

[pat34lee]

The pro paul indoctrinated people won't see his lies and obvious faults, while those who don't accept him see these so passionately we want to trash him completely, but it's not as though he hasn't said many things which are true, the best deceivers always do, and in Romans Paul admits many things concerning "That his lie may abound."

Jesus said not one jot of the law has changed...

Paul did not do away with the law any more than Yeshua nailed it to the cross. Peter and the other apostles would have branded him a false apostle if he tried. Far from that, Peter supported Paul:

[bible]
2 Peter 3
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
[/bible]
​

 

[yonah_mishael]

You have a snarky attitude (to put it politely) and your opinions do not impress me very much either.

Oh, well, I'm sorry about that. Do you, then, know Greek so that you can weigh in on matters of Greek textual criticism?

On 1 Corinthians 9:20

After the first clause, to them that are under the law as under the law, the following words, mee oon autos hupo nomon, not being myself under the law, are added by ABCDEFG, several others; the later Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian, Vulgate, and all the Itala; Cyril, Chrysostom, Damascenus, and others; and on this evidence Griesbach has received them into the text.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The textual variations are thus:

μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον] (p[sup]46[/sup]) Clement Origen[sup]1/2[/sup] cop[sup]sa[/sup] cop[sup]bo[/sup] א B vg goth Ambrosiaster Chrysostom Pelagius Augustine Cyril A C arm it[sup]d[/sup] D* syr[sup]h[/sup] John-Damascus it[sup]z[/sup] it[sup]b[/sup] F G P 0150 33 it[sup]ar[/sup] it[sup]e[/sup] it[sup]f[/sup] it[sup]g[/sup] it[sup]x[/sup] 1739 1912 181 436 1175 104 459 (256*) 256[sup]c[/sup] 1319 2127 1573 6 365 it[sup]dem[/sup] 629*[sup]vid[/sup] 630 1877 2200 2495 it[sup]o[/sup] WH Riv CEI Nv TILC NM NR
omit] Origen[sup]1/2[/sup] syr[sup]p[/sup] geo Nestorius[sup]according to Marius Mercator[/sup] Theodoret D[sup]2[/sup] eth Ps-Oecumenius Ψ K 2464 Lect slav 81 451 2138 Theophylact 88 326 330 1241 424 460 614 1852 2492 629[sup]c[/sup] 1881 1984 1518 ς 1985 Dio ND Byz
Source: Greek New Testament - With Textual Variants​

It doesn't seem to me that the textual variants are so evenly distributed. Note that א, A and B all agree on this. It's also all over the place in its support. There are several mss. in which it doesn't appear, but it has enough support to be considered original without much doubt. Does anyone have Metzger's Textual Commentary so as to tell us what grade the committee gave this reading?

As per the comment in Adam Clarke's commentary that these words were added by these sources, that's presumptive. One can say that only if one has a base text already assumed, as I guess is done in taking the TR as the base text and any variation from it is "addition" and "omission." This shows the author's prejudice toward the authenticity of the TR text.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Alexandrian texts for this reading: א (Sinaiticus) A (Alexandrinus) B (Vaticanus) C (Ephraemi Rescriptus)
Western texts: D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) Augustine[sup]Latin[/sup] Vulgate[sup]Latin[/sup]
Byzantine texts: Chrysostom John-Damascus

The NA reading is supported by important witnesses in three different families of manuscripts. Do you really think it's just a fluke?

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

You have a snarky attitude (to put it politely) and your opinions do not impress me very much either.

clear & succinct. unlike some inexplicable thesis mongering put

forth here, where only copy n paste skills are displayed but no

(true) developmental/explanatory skills at all.

(not with this greek anyways.....)

 

[pat34lee]

Alexandrian texts for this reading: א (Sinaiticus) A (Alexandrinus) B (Vaticanus) C (Ephraemi Rescriptus)
Western texts: D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) Augustine[sup]Latin[/sup] Vulgate[sup]Latin[/sup]
Byzantine texts: Chrysostom John-Damascus

The NA reading is supported by important witnesses in three different families of manuscripts. Do you really think it's just a fluke?

Not a fluke, a fake. There are enough manuscripts without the phrase that the question should be, "Was the phrase added in some or left out of the others?" There was no reason for the church to delete the phrase, as it aligned with their anti-Torah bias. There was every reason for some scribe along the way to add it.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Not a fluke, a fake. There are enough manuscripts without the phrase that the question should be, "Was the phrase added in some or left out of the others?" There was no reason for the church to delete the phrase, as it aligned with their anti-Torah bias. There was every reason for some scribe along the way to add it.

This is why there are those who are much better qualified to judge on these topics. It stuns me when people who don't know Greek and have no clue about how textual criticism works goes and makes judgments about things that are over their heads. This is pretty clear-cut in favor of the reading. All of the important and weighty texts favor the reading, and it is supported by various text families. You can't just declare something spurious because you don't like what it says!

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

Not a fluke, a fake. There are enough manuscripts without the phrase that the question should be, "Was the phrase added in some or left out of the others?" There was no reason for the church to delete the phrase, as it aligned with their anti-Torah bias. There was every reason for some scribe along the way to add it.

Speaking of which (see underlined pls), i've often wondered

about whether or not that short prayer of Jabez was an

addition to scripture via a scribe. it kinda reads that way to

some folk, sometimes. [1 Chron 4:9-10]

selah.

 

[Shimshon]

Jesus said not one jot of the law has changed...

So, how then do you understand the fact that the cohen hagadol has been changed, along with the way he administers the atonement? Has not the pattern and shadow been 'fulfilled' in the death and resurrection of Yeshua? Did this not cause a change in the way the Torah was administered to it's people? Hasn't the Torah been modifided by the works of Messiah? Hasn't he done something that changed the way his people attain a relationship with God? Before we had Levi'im who died and were in need of cleansing themselves before they could stand in for the others. Now we have a high priest who made those instructions of cleansing obsolete. We no longer need to have the temple cleansed by the blood of animals because now we have a living temple that is cleansed by a living God, daily, every second you breathe. Yeshua made the way into the holy of holies and administers Torah for all God's people. Quite a change from the way things were in Yisrael with Moshe, no? The giving of the Spirit upon ALL who seek him diligently?

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" 8 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," 17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.